Henry A. Kissinger Quotes

Today, war of necessity is used by critics of military action to describe unavoidable response to an attack like that on Pearl Harbor that led to our prompt, official declaration of war, while they characterize as unwise wars of choice the wars in Korea, Vietnam and the current war in Iraq.

International law seeks to avoid the use of force but does not preclude it.

What I've learned, and will try to remember from now on, is that defending your country's credibility is never sufficient reason to fight a war.

I’m not opposed to all wars; just dumb wars.

It is not every cause of war that should lead to war.

When our vital interests are challenged, or the will and conscience of the international community is defied, we will act; with peaceful diplomacy whenever possible, with force when necessary.

Pre-emptive war might fall within the framework of international law.

Wars of necessity are essentially unavoidable. They involve the most important national interests, a lack of promising alternatives to the use of force, and a certain and considerable price to be paid if the status quo is allowed to stand. Examples include World War II and the Korean War.

I believe in not attacking a country pre-emptively unless you're sure of what you're doing and you're working with allies.

If there is no direct threat why are we invading?

The rules of engagement have become so rigid that governments often straightjacket themselves in the face of unambiguous aggression.

First, we could have defied both of them and could have gone to war against both of these nations for this violation of international law and interference with our neutral rights.

Unilateral preemption should not in any way be the model for how we conduct international relations.

I think that war is diplomacy by other means, for sure, and there have been wars that have been fought for righteous reasons. There are wars that have had to be fought, and there will probably continue to be.

So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.

We believe in peace, but we are not pacifists. Sometimes we have to use force

Would it not be worthwhile to pause a moment before we commit ourselves to war at the pleasure of other nations in whose councils we shall have but one vote?

If the United States were attacked by rockets from one of our neighboring countries, we would be a lot tougher on them than Israel has been on the Palestinians. When we were attacked, we sent an army abroad and took over Afghanistan from the Taliban.

If you recognize the right of every nation to construe for itself what is aggressive war and what is defensive war, you have not accomplished much by agreeing to renounce war.

Is a military solution the only way to stop nations from doing bad things?

Preemption, democracy promoting and nation building have all been sullied by association by association with the War in Iraq.

The United States will never take part in an aggressive war.

My speculation is that the U.S. does not want to establish the principle that it has to defer to some higher authority before carrying out the use of violence.

Unless a nation's life faces peril, war is murder.

I am against preventive war because it means measures by the UN against us.